by Aerie » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:43 pm
by bennymacca » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:44 pm
Tony Clifton wrote:It has been pretty standard throughout cricket's history that a batsman who averages 40 is a good player and someone who averages 50+ is a great player.
Perhaps a few more are tipping over the 50 threshold now compared to previously but it's still a pretty decent measure of a player's worth. Times change, pitches change, rules change but that 40/50 mark remains a pretty solid guide.
There is just one outlier in any era - Bradman.
by The Bedge » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:46 pm
bennymacca wrote:Smith is on 61.23, really hope he manages to overtake Voges and stay there
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by The Bedge » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:50 pm
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by bennymacca » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:55 pm
by Grenville » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:04 pm
bennymacca wrote:Is there a bigger single outlier in the history of sport?
Off the top of my head I can’t think of one.
Not that familiar with American sports though so there could be one there
We’ve had this discussion before I think.
Phil Taylor is the one I can think of that may come close, and I think there is some squash player that usually gets mentioned too
by Grenville » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:05 pm
by Down the Hill » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:19 pm
by Booney » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:23 pm
The Bedge wrote:Down the Hill wrote:heater31 wrote:Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
Pitches would've been very average by the end of tests, not just the start. I doubt there would've been groundsman who were committed full time to producing a beautiful deck like these days.
Not just soft sticky wickets, would've got a few that crumbled or opened up badly over the course of a game.
Think pitch difference is a valid point.
Apart from the pitches though, bats weren't nearly as good as now and grounds were full size, not roped off 20m in like these days as well.
by reppoh_eht » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:33 pm
Booney wrote:Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.
I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.
by am Bays » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:35 pm
Down the Hill wrote:Heather McKay (Squash) and Walter Lindrum (Billiards) are two Aussies that get mentioned alot as being Bradmanesque in their sports.
by am Bays » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:40 pm
reppoh_eht wrote:Booney wrote:Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.
I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.
Not sure those points are that valid... Every other batsman back then got to face the same pie chuckers yet still no one comes close.
by amber_fluid » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:08 pm
by Corona Man » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:31 pm
reppoh_eht wrote:Booney wrote:Not to detract from Bradman's numbers, but you can't tell me the bowling would have been too crash hot back then. Behind the front line bowlers would have been some blokes delivering pies like a Balfours van on a Saturday morning.
I also looked at the amount of boundaries hit back then, Bradman is miles behind the modern player is regards to boundaries ( he only hit 6 6's in his career ) so yes, bats are better and grounds are smalle but I can paint a picture in my head of Bradman noodling around some half track rubbish for a chance less 2 more often than not. Clearly his ability to stay at the crease was one of his greatest attributes.
Not sure those points are that valid... Every other batsman back then got to face the same pie chuckers yet still no one comes close.
by daysofourlives » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:42 pm
The Bedge wrote:Down the Hill wrote:heater31 wrote:Better than all of them, he did it on wickets that had no covers.....The Bedge wrote:Those tables just remind me how much of a freak Bradman truly was!
The old covers chestnut. That one always makes me laugh. If it doesn't rain for 3 or 4 days leading up to a game of cricket and not during the game then what benefit are covers anyway. The way "experts" throw around the "no covers in those days" comments would make you think that covers have made batting so much easier even when it doesn't rain for a month of Sunday's. And do we know for sure that pre World War 2 groundsman didn't use rudimentary means to protect their wickets in the lead up to a game even if the laws back then didn't allow or didn't account for the use of covers once the game had commenced. No doubt that Trumper, Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond et al played on some soft stickies that the current day player isn't exposed to but anyone would think that in the "good ole days" it used to rain all summer in the cricket playing nations.
Pitches would've been very average by the end of tests, not just the start. I doubt there would've been groundsman who were committed full time to producing a beautiful deck like these days.
Not just soft sticky wickets, would've got a few that crumbled or opened up badly over the course of a game.
Think pitch difference is a valid point.
Apart from the pitches though, bats weren't nearly as good as now and grounds were full size, not roped off 20m in like these days as well.
by Gozu » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:46 pm
Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.
by Corona Man » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:50 pm
Gozu wrote:Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.
I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.
by heater31 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:48 pm
Reckon Boof only said that to piss off The Don.....Corona Man wrote:Gozu wrote:Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.
I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.
Or as boof used to say... you can hit it in the air, just not near the fielders.
by Jack » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:07 am
by Corona Man » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:02 am
heater31 wrote:Reckon Boof only said that to piss off The Don.....Corona Man wrote:Gozu wrote:Corona Man wrote: I read a Bradman quote once re his lack of 6's. He is rumoured to have said.. "I didn't hit sixes as that requires you to hit the ball in the air"... or words to that affect.
I remember a mate who was a bit of a grafter and his reasoning was always you can't get caught if you don't hit in the air.
Or as boof used to say... you can hit it in the air, just not near the fielders.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |